It is becomong a holiday traditon, just like "Miracle on 34th St. (great movie--the first one--the best attack on cynhicism in any medium, at any time) and "It's a Wonderful Life". Obama bets taht he has more staying power than Congress, as the Congressional year comes to a close. ObamaCare? Easy. Force Congreess to stay, at Christmas, until Obama gets what he wants. Stimulus and Democrat BRIGBES? Easy In 2010, Obama and the Democrats again took things down to the wire as Congress was about tto adjourn for the year. We got the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", the "payroll tax cut", and tkhe budget bkusting extension of unemployment benefits for another year. The "pyaroll tax cut' (attack on the Social Secuirty "tax", which is the SOLE funding for Social Seucrity), lest you forget, was supposed to be a ONE YEAR "stimulus". It did not work That does not matter tto Obama, to democrats, to the medai OR to too many in the GOP. But the point is that Obama thinks he has a "winning formula" here. He thinks that Congress wanst so go home on vactation enough to ETRAY conservatives--really enough to BETRAY the country. This blog told lyou last year how BAD the end of the year deal was. It ADDED more to the DEBT--requiring the "debt ceiling' be raised EARLIER--thann the GOP has "cut" from slpending--depsite GOP promises to the contrary, once their new House got in office. Now Obama is DARING Congress to show that it is as "serious" about standing up for what "it" (read GOP conservatives) believves as Obama is in standing up for MORE DEFICTS AND DEBT. Yep. This DARE is yet another chance for the GOP to show that its enrie "debt ceiling" "crisi" was a JOKE: a polticial stunt taht the GOP did nto mean.
I am not kiddig. A "featured" Yahoo/AT&T/AP story tonight is that Obama has threatened Congress that OBAMA will MAKE Congress "stay"--rather than take its uusual yar-end recess-until Obama gets what he wants (more debt and deficits) on the "temporary" (lol) "payroll tax cut" and the extension of that ridiculous 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. What wuold the GOP House do IF GOP politicians had ANY cojones? Right. The House would pass whatever it is going to pass (before Obama extrotion, bribery and threats), or not pass anything, and THEN ADJOURN. Obama CANNOT STOP the House from adjourning. Only COWARDICE can stop the GOP House from adjourning. Unfortunately, the GOP lacks real LEADERSHIP, and cojones. What the GOP does not lack is COWARDS.
Oh, Obama has said he will postpone his "own vacation" ("poor guy"--as if he was not taking trips and vacations ALL OF THE TIME, including during that farce of a battle on "deficit reduction".--to "make' Congress "stay" "as long as it takes". Tis, of course, is NOT about 'vacations". It is about BLACKMAIL and EXTROTION to try to USE a "deadline" (and scheduled recesss around which plans have been made), in oder to FORCE the gOP to do what Obama wants. Again, tteh GOP should make that clear by passing whatever the GOP wants to pass, and then ADJOURNING. That is the ONLY way to respond to Obama' s HARD BALL (really MAFIA) politics. But, as noted, the GOP is composed of COEWARDS. That is why we now have this Christamas tradition. From the 2010 "lame duck' sessrion, to the 2111 FRAUDULENT "spending deal" (NO CUTS in this last year's spending), to the farce of a "debt ceiling" debate and supercommitttee "deal", what Obama and the Democrats are "learning" is that they just need to push the GOP to a "deadline", and the GOP will CAVE to what Obama wants. Cowards die a thousand deaths, while brave men die but once. The GOP is dyihg a thousand deaths because they are COWARDS (to the exttent they are not simply Big Government guys and gals, WIOHTOUT PRINCIIPLES, who are just putting up a show until ththey do what they always wanted to do). Nope. I do NOT belive that "Tea Party Politicians" have made ANY difference at all, and this blog is more than ready to call for THEIR DEFEAT.
Oh yes. Vote AGAINST each and every GOP politician who votes FOR the GOP (that is not one of my usual typos--I am talking the GOP) bill extending the "payroll tax cut" and unemployment benefits yet again. This is a GOP FRAUD, which makes a mockery of that same "debt ceiling" "fight". Just extending those two BUDGET BUSTING bribes/stimulus measures will add $150 BILLIN dollars or so to the next required debt ceiling raise. And then the DISHONEST HYPOCRITES in the GOP will cry and moan about how the "debt ciling" should not be raised. You just can't get any mroe DISHONEST than that. Yep. I just called you GOP politicians LIARS, as far as what you said in that debit ceiling debate. That was this blog's correct flat statement of a few articles ago: The GOP, as a political institution, does NOT belive in a "balanced budge", OR in really "cutting spending" and the deficit. If they did, they would NOT vote to extend that fraudulent "apyroll tax cut" AT ALL, or vote to extend that ridiculously extendied 99 weeks of unemployment benefits (paying people not to work). No, don't even talk about the FRAUD of "payring for" this over TEN YERS (when the ebt is INCREASED NOW), when we are not even "payring for" the government we have now. It will just get me to faomign at the mouth. One of my borthers swears he could see the foam on his scrfeen, while reading my recent articles on this fraudluent "payroll tax cut" STIMULUS (which did not work this year--talk about meeting Einstenin's definition of INSANITY!!!).
Nope. The "payroll tax cut" really has nothing to do with" stimulus" or "jobs". It is a BRIBE, ure and simple. Obama and the Democrats are betting that people want to be BIRBED. Unfortunately, GOP politicans AGREE with that, whichn leves the GOP in the unfortuante position of not haveing a real philosohy of government. The GOP is realy just telling you: Elect us, and we wil give you the RIGHT BRIBES--not all of that stuff for the poor. and the unions. We will bribe YOU directly."
As you now, I have had it. I refuse to support the GOP (Grand, Outdated Party, as the "R" word is banned from this blog). Thre is nothing the GOP can do to "get Skip back" (as if they care). But is it not becomihng obvious to a lot more peole than just me that the GOP is BETRAYING the things that supposedly got them eleted in 22010? I think it is becoming obvious. This latest Obama DARE is jut another opportunity for the GOP to show that NOBOCY should be any different than Skip on thhis. This blog has PREDICTAED tghis for MONTHS. As I have often stated, this blog is different. I tell you TOMORROW'S "news" today, rather than givng you proopaganda based on the past (if not on total fantasy), as the media does. I am better than Rush Limbaugh at this. I am better than ANYBODY at this--at least better in terms o actually tellng you abut it. I am not sure how much the total ignorance of even peple like Rush Limbauh, on what is about to happen, is PRETENSE (for partisan political reasons). I don't play that game. I tell you NOTHING for partisan political reasons, although I definitely have a oint of view. But I con't change how I present that pint of view based on whether it will "bembarrass" GOP politicians. Hey. They "embarrass" THEMSELVES. They hardly need me.
The fundamental questino rmains: What will the GOP do abut the DARE that Obama has given them? NOTHING is my answer.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). By the way, Rick Perry actually has come out with an ad attackng Obama and the left ON RELIGION (open gays pushing gay activismm nin the miitary, prayer in the public shcolls, ect.). Sure, this is dESPERATION on the part of Perry, who knows that this blog was RIGHT MONTS AGO, before the "braln lock moment", when this blog told you it was all over for Perry. This blog even told you, when Perry was LEADING in the polls, that Perry was NOT THAT IMPRESSIVE, and hardly a conservative "savior". Rush Liimbaugh did not telly ou that. NO ONE told you that, except this blog. This bolg has also told you that Newt Gingrich is extremely smart, but has NO PRINCIPLES at all (meaning it is absurd for either consrvatives or leftists to say that Gingrich is part of the extreme "right wing". Hogwash. As I have told you, Gingrich would make an INTERESTING Preisdnt (smart, but with those no principles), but hardly one a conservative can count on. Oh. Back to Perry. I actually saw a leftist say taht Perry had no business talkng aobut "prayer in the schools" when that is a "local issues", and where Perry is in faovr--correctly, if not consistently--of issues being handled on a local and sate basis. Thatis a LIE (not Perry, but the "journalist" or leftist "spokeswoman"). "Prayer in the public scholls is actually a NATINAL ISSUE, and ONLY a NATIONAL ISSUE (until that is resolved, and local school boards are given the authroity that they have lost). Why is this? Come on you know this one, f you have not been brfainwashihed by LEFTIST LIEARS> The Untied States Supreme Court has said it is UNCONSTITUTIONAAL to say prayers in the public schools. That has tanke LOCAL CHOICE AWAY. Unless that is changed, by Constitutinal Amendment or change in the Supreme Court, a local school borad has NO "chice" on prayer in the public shcolls. erry is exactly right on this one: this IS a "preisdentilal" issue, IF you dare make it one. Oh, by the way, I have previously told you that I hihnk "Christians' (those who really believe in their religion) make a mistake to look at whether lpeople running for office SHARE THEIR RELIGION (as distinct from their agenda). Obama, for example (as Perry sort of implies) is NOT A CHRISTIAN. Bill Maher and I agree on that. But Obama does nto share a Christian agenda, either, which is more to the point. I havve told you that I don't see how any BELEIVEING Christian can vote for Obama. I would agree with Perry that Obama is ANTI-CHRISTIAN. However, I am not a Christian either. I amn an agnostic, like Bill Mahre claims to be. Nevetheless, Christians, if I were ever stupid enough to run for anytthing, would do well to VOTE FOR ME. "Prayer int he shcols" is an examle. While I don't really like it much a POLICY shoice, I htink it is ABSURD to suggest that the Constitution prohibits LOCAL prayer in LOCAL SCHOOLS. The people who passed the 14th Amendment, to establish the rights of former slaves to be full citizens, would be astonished to find that the Supreme Court has USED that Amendment to outlaw prayer in the public shcools. Not wevn really arguable. This was a POWER GRAP by the Supreme Court--the Roosevelt court. As I have said before, the WORDING of the First Amenndment makes clear that it ONLY applies to the Federal Government ("Congress shall make no law...." There was not even any rel attempt to "ban" prayer in the public schools until the 1960s. NONE of tehFirst Amendment was really appplied to the states until the late 1930s. No, the leftist was right (although a LIEAR). "prayer in the pubic schools" SHOULD be an "issue" for local school boards. But Perry was exactly right, in that the Supreme Court has made that IMPOSSIBLE, nad made it a national issue. I doubt if it is a natiional issue most people want to "fight" right now, but it is still a national issue. I remind you taht leftists are HYPOCRITGES on this. CNN (John Kng, Jack Cafferty, et. al.) will say that the people don't want to discuss religion and "social issues" when we have so many otehr, more imporant issues around. THEN those HYPOCRITES will make "gay marriage", "gays in the military", "ay civil rights', abortion, Palnned Parenthood funding or the religiin of Herfman Cain or Mitt Romney DEFINING "issues" in the campaign. I am not kidding. CNN an an article entitled" "The Gospel according to Herman Cain". These are the worst hypocrites to ever walk teh Earth, on two leegs or four. Thus, I don't fautlt Perry for makng an ISSUE of the leftis', indlucing Obama's, anti-Christian approach to religion (especailly evangelical Christian). I jsut thihk it is the sign of a desperate candiate, who would not otherwise be willing to take the flak (as the whole GOP is not willing to take the flak on the "payroll tax cut" and extending extended unemployment benefits). Obama, for God's sake (pun intended), OMMIATTED "Creator" from teh Declaration of Independence TWICE. The man is NOT a "Christian" (a believeing one). He belives in NO religion at all. Beill Maher and I agree that Obama is a "secular humanist" (wich means "leftism" is his religion). I can't support Perry for President (knowing too much about him), but it is definitely NOT because of his open appeal to religious voters . What is different about taht, and the leftist Democrat open appeal to ANTII-Chrisitan, or at least anti-fundamentalist Christian, voters? No difference, except in the minds of the HYPOCIRIES of CNN (The Anti-Christian Network). It is just not ging to get Perry enough votes to do him any good (absent a Gingrich implosion, and perhaps even then).